THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:47 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Éric Forest (Deputy Chair ) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I would like to welcome all the senators as well as all the Canadians who are tuning in on sencanada.ca.
My name is Éric Forest. I’m the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, independent senator from Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Kingston: Joan Kingston from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ross: Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I just want to remind you to be careful when handling your earpieces out of respect for our interpreters, in order to avoid feedback.
Honourable senators, today we’re continuing our study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome officials from Transport Canada. We’re joined by Vincent Robitaille, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs; Miguel Izquierdo Martin, Director General, Commercial, Program Oversight and Governance, High-Speed Rail; Chantale Côté, Director General, Policies, Integration and Governance, High-Speed Rail; and Lara Raoub, Director, Land Acquisition and Agreements, High-Speed Rail.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. We’ll now hear opening remarks.
[English]
Vincent Robitaille, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Transport Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. The High-Speed Rail Initiative is one of my main areas of responsibility.
Today, I would like to provide you with an overview of the High-Speed Rail Initiative and outline the importance of the legislative measures contained in the Budget Implementation Act, 2025, which will ensure its timely and effective delivery.
High-speed rail will transform travel between Quebec City and Toronto by delivering faster, more reliable and more sustainable service in Canada’s busiest corridor. Cutting travel times in half means reaching Toronto from Ottawa in just a few hours or reaching Montreal in under an hour, bringing people closer together, strengthening economic ties and offering a modern alternative that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Beyond better travel, this project is a major economic catalyst. It will create tens of thousands of good jobs, support a transportation system worthy of a major economy, and unlock the potential for up to 23,000 new homes.
The initiative will also bring major benefits to Canadian businesses and industries. We will put Canadian suppliers first and will require the use of local materials and expertise. High‑speed rail will help strengthen our supply chains here at home and support good jobs for Canadians.
[Translation]
In 2022, VIA TGF — now Alto — was created as a wholly owned subsidiary of VIA Rail while operating independently. This structure allows Alto to benefit from the corporate independence and agility necessary to advance the initiative and maintain world-class expertise.
The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Transport, remains the owner of the high-speed rail initiative and sets the strategic objectives. Transport Canada and my team support the minister, in particular by developing legislative and regulatory proposals.
[English]
Recently, the Minister of Transport announced that the first segment of the High-Speed Rail Initiative will run between Ottawa and Montreal, and that construction is set to begin in 2029.
Let me be clear, Canadians will have their voices heard. On January 21, Alto launched its public engagement process, hosting open houses with a series of themed roundtables for both in-person and virtual information sessions. An online consultation platform is also available until March 2026. Another round of consultations is planned later in the year when the project is further defined and will provide greater clarity on the alignment for potential affected landowners.
The high-speed rail network act in Bill C-15 is firmly rooted in existing legislation through the Expropriation Act and the Impact Assessment Act. The high-speed rail network act draws on lessons learned from other major infrastructure projects, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, as well as others around the world. These legislative measures are essential to making sure the High-Speed Rail Initiative can be delivered efficiently and on time.
There are seven proposed legislative measures. The first one is declaring the high-speed railway line to be for the general advantage of Canada. This measure clarifies that the high-speed railway line will be under federal jurisdiction, even where some segments are constructed within only one province. I just want to be clear that this measure is intended to clarify jurisdictions, not to override applicable provincial laws.
The second measure is to require that each segment of the project be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. This measure ensures that each segment that will form part of the high-speed rail network will be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. By providing this clarification in legislation, this avoids uncertainty and provides greater transparency. In addition, requirements of other federal permits will still apply, such as those under the Fisheries Act.
[Translation]
Let me repeat. This measure will provide greater transparency while ensuring that all the other federal permits continue to apply.
[English]
The third measure is to remove the need for a separate process under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act. This measure is proposed to reduce duplication by removing the need for a separate process in which the Canadian Transportation Agency approves the location of a railway line.
Robust consultation would be addressed in the impact assessment process through a one-window approach while still allowing for a thorough impact assessment.
[Translation]
This measure will reduce the duplication of processes and ensure greater efficiency. A major consultation will take place through the impact assessment process.
[English]
The fourth measure is to stipulate that land can be expropriated during the impact assessment process. This allows that land acquisition can be initiated without waiting for the impact assessment process to be completed. However, construction on this land will not begin until the impact assessment process is complete.
[Translation]
The fifth measure supports the advancement of the acquisition and expropriation of land required for the high-speed rail initiative. To give you some context, the geometric and technical requirements of a high-speed train strictly limit the curvature of the tracks and leave only a limited number of options. This makes it necessary to have a land acquisition regime tailored to the initiative.
[English]
Bill C-15 proposes adjustments to align the federal expropriation process with the practice generally applicable in Quebec and Ontario. The majority of the existing expropriation process, including rules governing notices, objections, compensation, valuations, independent appraisals, reimbursement of reasonable costs and access to the court, remain unchanged and continue to be governed by the federal Expropriation Act.
Landowners retain the right to receive advance notice, submit written objections before expropriation is confirmed, and to obtain an independent appraisal and to seek judicial determination based on market value.
[Translation]
The bill also introduces a temporary notice of prohibition of work. This tool prevents major changes or new developments on land that might be needed for the initiative. There would be no impediment to the regular maintenance or normal use of the land.
[English]
To be clear, and I repeat, this provision prevents only major works or new development. It does not prevent regular maintenance or use.
[Translation]
In order to minimize the need for expropriation, the law allows Alto to proactively purchase land. This includes a right of first refusal if a landowner decides to sell. Alto can purchase the land at the price offered on the free market. Landowners can still sell their land freely. This provision simply helps to secure the land earlier. It should be noted that the affected landowners will receive compensation in a transparent manner and at market value.
To remain as clear as possible, Bill C-15 complies with the Expropriation Act and the Impact Assessment Act. It only makes adjustments that align federal expropriation processes with the general practices used by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The sixth measure seeks to ensure that Indigenous knowledge provided in confidence in connection with the high-speed rail network is indeed treated as confidential in order to protect the knowledge against disclosure under the Access to Information Act, in keeping with the legislative measures to guarantee this protection.
Lastly, the seventh measure seeks to ensure that the relevant parts of the Official Languages Act apply to private partners and any other entity operating the high-speed train in order to guarantee that the public can access services in both official languages and that employees can work in the language of their choice.
[English]
In closing, these legislative measures will allow the High‑Speed Rail Initiative to move forward with the speed and certainty that Canadians expect. With this legislation in place, we will be closer to connecting our major economic centres, strengthening tourism, dramatically cutting travel time and helping unlock new opportunities for affordable housing across the Quebec City to Toronto corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks. We’ll now open the floor to questions. I would like to remind the senators that you have a maximum of four minutes for the first round. I would ask that the senators ask the questions directly to the witnesses and that the witnesses respond concisely. The clerk will let me know how much time is left.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
I have read the legislation, and I did watch the proceedings of the Finance Committee in the House of Commons on Monday, but I’m curious as to why is it just this aspect of the corporation in a bill? Why isn’t there enabling legislation for the corporation? I mean, it’s a corporation that’s going to spend, we think, upwards of $90 billion. I was looking for the enabling legislation, but this is just a piece of it.
How come there’s no enabling legislation? That is my first question. Perhaps you can just briefly tell me why there is no enabling legislation for this corporation that is going to oversee the biggest project, I think someone said, since the St. Lawrence Seaway. Can you tell me why there is no enabling legislation?
Mr. Robitaille: The corporation that was created, Alto, is a subsidiary of VIA Rail. VIA Rail doesn’t have its own enabling legislation. In this context, the corporation was created through an order-in-council. That is the flow-down effect.
Senator Marshall: But the only thing that we can find on the corporation is if we go on the corporation’s website and I’ve seen, I think, two Orders In Council. So how is the corporation including this bill that we’re going to contemplate approving? How is Parliament going to be kept informed as to the progress or the lack thereof of this part of the bill or even of the corporation in totality?
Because I looked under part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, and it doesn’t really provide for transparency and accountability.
How does this fit into accountability to Parliament?
Mr. Robitaille: Even if Alto is a subsidiary of VIA Rail, it is deemed a parent Crown corporation under the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This means it presents its own corporate plan and summary to Parliament. It provides annual reporting, as with other parent Crown corporations, like Canada Post, for example. So it does provide a lot of transparency to Parliament. And also, they are part, as a parent Crown corporation, of the estimate process, so they can also, when they have been called upon, come to both House and Senate committees.
Senator Marshall: In the Financial Administration Act, all that is required is a summary of the corporate plan and the budget as approved by the minister. It’s not even the total document; it is a summary. And then the Treasury Board is the organization that is going to determine when the summaries are going to be tabled. So the information that is going to Parliament is going to be a summary, and we don’t have any idea how much it will be summarized.
And we don’t know when it’s going to be tabled in Parliament. So for an organization that is going to spend $90 billion, and we have a bill here now that is going to expropriate land, but the accountability is not there.
I’m just wondering, was that not taken into consideration when the bill was drafted and when the corporation was created?
Mr. Robitaille: Again, Alto is subject to the same transparency as all other Crown corporations, but in addition to that, they are taking a number of steps to be transparent. They have published a number of things on their website about the project, which has been accessible. And they are undergoing, for example, the consultation process that we are doing right now, something that is almost unprecedented in scale and scope.
Senator Marshall: But the accountability mechanism is not legislated. That’s the big issue that I have with that section of the bill, and even with the corporation. They testified for the committee on two occasions, and I just find that transparency and accountability are lacking.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for being here. As a senator from Ontario and a senator from Ottawa, I’m really quite excited about this project. In large part because I think Ottawa is going through a period where it seems a bit tired in many ways, and we need to boost Ottawa in many ways.
I’ve certainly been supporting various ideas, such as pedestrianizing Wellington Street and other kinds of ideas. But certainly having high-speed rail coming to Ottawa is important because one of the plans over the years has been for it to go from Montreal to Toronto, through Kingston, and not even come to Ottawa. So I’m happy to see this plan going through Ottawa. This is good for Ottawa and this region.
Three questions: what are your thoughts about whether the best train station is the existing train station on Tremblay Road or dare I say the current Senate building, which we will be vacating in a few years?
Second, you have a public — it is not quite a public-private partnership, but the land and the infrastructure will be owned by Alto, but I understand the day-to-day operations will be done by a private sector company. I’m wondering if you have thoughts about that.
And I look at the private-public partnership with the OLRT, and that is, sadly, an ongoing disaster.
And my third question is about the groundbreaking in 2029. It seems to be quite long. Other railway lines of this kind, New York for example, have gone into production faster. Can you comment on those three questions?
Mr. Robitaille: Very good questions, happy to answer them.
First in regard to where the station is located. In all cities, and certainly for people that live in Ottawa, understanding the choices that they’re going to be made is of great interest.
Alto will do a multi-criterion analysis based on the information that they get from the consultation. The analysis will also take into account the services that it is going to represent, the ridership, the environmental impact, the economic impact, and the cost, and then they will present recommendations to the Minister of Transport for the full network to see what would be the best option.
Those are the elements that will be taken into account. It would be premature for me to say which one would be best, but it’s going to be important to do this thoroughly and not only in Ottawa, in Montreal, in Toronto, and in Laval, to get the best outcome for Canadians.
Senator Cardozo: In the other cities, you will go with existing train stations?
Mr. Robitaille: Actually, if you look at the consultation map, there is a zone. The requirement for Montreal and Toronto is to reach the downtown area.
Certainly, the existing stations are options, but the same analysis is being done. Again, the goal is to have the best project for Canadians.
It is important to do the work well. You are talking about the experience in Ottawa. We have been looking at all major rail projects around the world, or a large number, and a typical mistake that is made is making decisions too early before the homework is done to have a commitment, say the train is going to get here, and when you do your homework, you find out that it’s cost prohibitive and extremely difficult, and this is where you face longer delays and cost overruns.
It is very important that Alto does this work well now, and officials like myself refrain from saying it should be here or there before the work is done.
Senator Cardozo: The public-private partnership.
Mr. Robitaille: This was very important to the structure of this project. We do not have high-speed rail in Canada. We can learn from other countries, so we ran a very successful international request for proposals to select a private partner team to help design this project.
We had companies from Spain, the U.K., and France participating. And the team that won is a Canadian and French consortium. And that brings the rail operating expertise of SNCF of France, and they run one of the best systems in the world. They have experience building it. So this is going to allow us to have a system that is designed from the start for its operations.
And that consortium will eventually be responsible for the operation. So if they build it poorly, they will need to live with the consequences because they will have financial skin in the game. So this is how we’re structuring it. It’s a bit different than the Ottawa LRT. And I would refrain from commenting too much on colleagues that are running different projects.
But a key difference in HSR is that the company that’s going to be operating the trains is already in the consortium, and they know that they will need to live with the consequences. If the system doesn’t work well, they have that skin in the game to make sure that it is a good project.
Senator MacAdam: Given the appropriations and the purchases that will have to take place, can you give me a sense of the timeline for this project?
Mr. Robitaille: The minister has made the announcement for construction to start in 2029.
One of the objectives is to secure either all or the majority of the land for the first segment before construction starts. That provides certainty.
Land acquisition will not and is not starting today. There may be a few opportunities to buy things that are put on the market. Effectively, this year is very important because Alto, and you may have seen from the website or the attention in the media, they have started their first round of consultations, where they went with a wide area, a ten-kilometre band. They want to understand. They want to know to complement the information that we already have.
Based on this, later in the spring, they will present a proposal for a specific line where the tracks will be to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport will make a decision as to where the tracks and stations will be.
Then there will be a second round of consultation on that precise area because there may be things that we miss. They may get 98% of it right, but there may be elements that they are not aware of. That second round of consultation is important.
Once this is done, there will be the final approval of the alignment, and then the formal process to acquire the land will start. I have worked on many projects. It is always hard. We’re asking for something for the landowners who are impacted; that is, give something for the greater good of the country, right? But they need to be treated with respect for what we are doing on behalf of the greater good.
At that point, Alto will be going to offer to purchase this land on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis. It is not only the cost of the land. There are other elements of compensation, such as moving costs, lawyers’ fees and other costs. There is a regime that is not giving them the minimum compensation, but something that reflects the sacrifices that they are making for the greater good.
Unfortunately, if there are some who do not agree to sell their land on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis, then this is where the expropriation process will start, and then there is a series. I am sure, through the discussion, we will be able to go through this. But there is a process of a notice of intent, then they can object. There is a process to consider the objections. And then there is a formal notice of expropriation, and the compensation is determined.
If, at the end of all this, the landowner is not satisfied with the compensation that they get, they can go to federal court to challenge the compensation that they are getting.
Again, it takes some time. It is important to do it well. It is important to respect, again, all of those landowners who will be impacted by the project. But you cannot build a major infrastructure project without some impact, but it needs to be done right, and this is what the government intends to do.
Senator Ross: That’s only three years from now. That’s a fairly quick timeline to get all of that completed. I’m wondering what will happen from a price or cost perspective if you are not able to meet those timelines that have been established?
Mr. Robitaille: You are right to say that the timelines are very important because, as with everything, the infrastructure market is going to face inflation. Delays have two impacts.
One, the cost of building the high-speed railway and the infrastructure is going to go up.
Second, the benefits won’t be there. The economic benefit of being able — if I take the example of somebody living in Ottawa, literally in two hours you can be in Toronto. In one hour, you can be in Montreal. The ability to work in different cities, to go see family, like the greenhouse gas reduction that will be there, all of this is going to be delayed.
This is why, again, things need to be done right. We have the two views. Some people, many people say, “Why can’t you start earlier?” And others say, “Is there enough time to get there?” I think that both views are right.
But four years is a realistic amount of time to do the work right and get this project on the rails — pardon the pun — as soon as reasonable.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you for being here this evening.
I am concerned about the overall oversight of the project. What will be the responsibilities for Transport Canada, Alto and the Cadence consortium with regard to the overall oversight?
What will that framework look like, that you will come together and oversee the implementation of this project?
Mr. Robitaille: I will go by layers, because this is what we need to do. This is a complex project, as Senator Marshall mentioned, and accountability is very important.
At the first level, there is a contract between Alto and the corporation, or the partner, Cadence, that establishes the requirements of the project but also what I will call a gain-share, pain-share mechanism.
It is important in such a massive transaction that the private sector wins with Canada when things go well, or loses money with Canada if it doesn’t go well. That’s the first structure. It is supported by a detailed structure.
At the second level is the Alto Crown corporation. As I mentioned, the Alto Crown corporation has been through the order-in-council, considered a parent Crown corporation with accountability to Parliament. They have the responsibility of producing a corporate plan and an annual report. They have both.
Then summaries of both of those are tabled in Parliament. They appear in Parliament to be accountable. But they also have accountability through this, through the Minister of Transport, who needs to approve those plans.
Then, third, there is a specific oversight mechanism that has been set for the project itself to oversee. Transport Canada will coordinate this on behalf of the minister, where there is constant oversight of the project and key decisions that need to be made, because those are important policies and final for all decisions for the Government of Canada, so it is holding them accountable.
There is more. If you look at the layers that exist in accountability between the corporation, the private partner and Alto, Alto and Parliament and Alto through the minister and Transport Canada to oversee the project.
Senator MacAdam: Something you mentioned in your introduction was your wanting to source as much as possible from Canada, from Canadian businesses. How confident are you, given the magnitude of this project, that you’re going to be able to do that?
Mr. Robitaille: Well, the nature of this project actually makes it relatively easy to have most of the material and work done in Canada because where most of the money is spent is civil work. It is preparing the ground, building the bridges and creating the tracks. The vast majority of the expenditure will be done.
Then the operations afterwards will be done by Canadians, the maintenance of the material will be done. That’s probably at least 80% of the expenditure.
When we go to areas where it can be harder and where we may need to build industrial capacity in order to build in Canada, is actually assembling high-speed trains, like the rolling stock in the system. We don’t have high-speed rail in Canada right now, so that’s something that Alto is engaging the industry, to see what would be needed to have the capacity to do this in Canada and whether it makes sense to do that.
Separately, about two thirds of the steel for building fencing and bridges can be done in Canada, but currently we do not have the capacity to build steel for rail that is to the standard needed for high-speed rail. That’s the other area where Alto is consulting: What would be needed to create that capacity in Canada?
We are confident that the majority of the expenditure will be done for Canadian companies. Alto, on our behalf, is working really hard to push it further and to build new industries where it makes sense.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: I want to just talk to you a little bit about why particular things are happening to put the pieces in place so you can do this. There is a declaration of the railway constituting the network is to be for the general advantage of Canada, section 4. Why did someone feel that this was necessary to begin the project?
Mr. Robitaille: The goal was to have absolute clarity of federal jurisdiction over the project, even if the project will be advanced in segments. When we say segments, we are really talking about between two major cities. We are starting with Ottawa to Montreal. That’s crossing a provincial boundary; it comes under federal jurisdiction. But the other two segments, from Montreal to Quebec City, or from Ottawa to Toronto, are fully in one province each.
There could have been some doubt, for example, that a provincial environmental impact assessment process should be done, instead of a federal impact assessment process, for those segments. That could have introduced regulatory uncertainty for the project, and we didn’t want that. The goal there is to ensure absolute certainty that each segment is a federal regime when it applies for an impact assessment.
Obviously, we are working with the provinces. They will still contribute to the exercise, but, legislatively, we wanted to make sure, again, to have that clarity.
Senator Kingston: For instance, this is a major project, right? This is considered one of the major projects, correct? Part of the major projects, as I understand it, is that there would be some agreement that the best environmental assessment act, as a consideration, would be followed. Why was that part of the Major Projects Office not enough for you in this project?
Mr. Robitaille: Please allow me to provide a clarification. Even if the Alto high-speed rail project has been determined to be a transformative strategy — I think that is the term that has been used — it is not currently a designated project under Bill C-5 as a major project Crown project. It is yet to be determined if it will be or not; at this point, it is not.
Even if it were, the legislation that is included in Bill C-15 today would be necessary because the Building Canada Act is primarily designed for projects that are undertaken by private proponents. There are a number of specific requirements. When you go through the measures that are included in the high-speed rail network act, you will see that the vast majority, if not the totality of them, are only applicable for projects where the government is a proponent. The Expropriation Act, this is really for us. The Official Languages Act, that’s really a project for Canada. The changes to the Access to Information Act to protect Indigenous knowledge, this is for a federal project, which could apply this. This is the nature of the measures that are before you today.
Senator Kingston: You have decided on Montreal to Ottawa. That’s great. A lot of people will benefit from that, including, probably, some of us in this room. But Toronto is the big centre. Why wasn’t it Toronto to Ottawa first or Toronto to Montreal, direct or through? Why was that not contemplated for this?
Mr. Robitaille: Again, all options were considered. But the decision to start with the shortest segment is based on best practices from around the world. It is to start with something that’s manageable, learn how to do it well and then build upon that.
The two largest cities on the network are Montreal and Toronto. Really, Ottawa is not the midpoint but on the way. If you want to do Montreal to Toronto, you will go through Ottawa. You can see Montreal to Ottawa being good in its own right, but it is also the first two thirds of the Montreal-to-Toronto segment.
Senator Kingston: It is along the way, right? This high-speed rail doesn’t stop at many places along the way.
Mr. Robitaille: One thing to know about high-speed rail is that it takes about 20 kilometres to slow down to enter the station and also to reach its full speed. As a result, you cannot have many stations. The government has set a minimum of seven stations; I think you’ve seen them — Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Laval, Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City. It doesn’t mean that all trains will stop at all stations every time. You could imagine there will be a lot of frequency. If 20 trains run between Ottawa and Toronto per day, maybe 8 of them will stop in Peterborough and 12 will go through. It provides flexibility and, again, it is based on best practices around the world.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I arrived late, but I was tuning in from my office and I came here afterwards. Don’t worry. I’ve been following this matter closely and I’m quite enthusiastic about this project.
A few days ago, a new group came together in Mirabel with the mayor and with people who had their land expropriated for the former Mirabel airport. There are many concerns. The first, they say, is the 10-kilometre-wide strip. They’re wondering how long it will take before we know where the 60, 80 or 100 metres for the rail line will go within the 10-kilometre strip. There are also the fences and everything else that must be built around the rail line so that no one can get through. As we can see in France, this project comes with major infrastructure.
How can we reassure them that the strip, which is bothering everyone, will get narrower and narrower?
Mr. Robitaille: We know all about Mirabel’s history. As a Transport Canada official, I personally know and understand the institutional baggage that this community carries. We were talking about the need to respect the fact that people will be required to make sacrifices. We must do so in the best possible way. This is what guides us. This is what guides Alto, because it matters.
In terms of the process, at this stage, Alto wants to understand the potential impact on a wide strip. Later in the spring, they’ll submit a more specific plan to the minister for a decision and for a second round of consultations. Most people will breathe a sigh of relief, and others will notice an impact closer to home than they would have liked.
When Alto carries out this work, it’s important to know that the options developed will focus on using existing corridors — meaning a highway, a current rail line or a power line — in order to minimize the impact. Should this prove impossible in some places, because the high-speed train must run in a straight line, a minimum number of cuts could be made. However, the goal is to follow the strip of land separating farms, for example, to minimize the impact of the work. We’re confident that the options submitted will truly take these aspects into account. Right now, of course, when people see the strip, they think: “My goodness, they might cut my farm in half.”
Today, I can’t say that this won’t happen. However, I can assure you that the teams will do their utmost to limit the issues with full knowledge of the facts. I would say this in reference to Mirabel’s history, but normally this applies to Eastern Ontario as well. The same diligence will be required to minimize the impact. It will then be necessary to treat people as respectfully as possible and with all the compassion that they deserve in this case.
Senator Dalphond: Starting next spring, I gather that a more specific plan will be submitted to the department. This will take a few weeks. At some point, a decision will be made on a particular option. This summer, I imagine that people will know that the strip has been reduced from 10 kilometres to half a kilometre.
Mr. Robitaille: At this stage, I can’t tell you exactly at what time of year this will happen. However, later this year, we’ll be able to see where the track will run. People will get a better idea of how it will look.
Senator Dalphond: The infamous sword of Damocles, which some say is preventing us from doing things, will last at most until this summer. It won’t last until 2029?
Mr. Robitaille: No. We know that starting with a wider corridor is a good approach. However, both Alto and Transport Canada are fully aware of the uncertainty that this creates and of the need to remove this uncertainty as quickly as possible.
Senator Dalphond: The mayor and other people are lamenting the fact that they weren’t involved.
Mr. Robitaille: A meeting has been scheduled with the mayor. There will be other meetings. There will be open houses, including one in Mirabel in the coming weeks.
Senator Hébert: You said earlier that we were looking into the possibility of sourcing as much as possible from Canadian suppliers. I think that it’s important to do so, given the situation with the REM in Montreal. People have doubts about whether the equipment manufactured in India is suitable for the Quebec climate. It’s a wake-up call to show the need to remain vigilant in this area.
Moreover, I gather that there aren’t necessarily any Canadian suppliers at the moment, as you said earlier. Are there any discussions going on? I understand that negotiations and discussions are under way with Canadian companies and industries to see how Canadian equipment can be supplied.
Is Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada in talks with the other players? If we want Canadian suppliers, this will probably require investment in these companies. Are other federal government players involved in these discussions to ensure that the goal is achieved?
Mr. Robitaille: Yes. It’s the biggest infrastructure project in a generation. We have a team that we call the “federal family”. I have the honour of chairing the federal family committees supporting the project. This includes all the players. One example is Build Canada Homes. To attract investment, we’re speaking with our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and Global Affairs Canada.
When we think of a TGV, we think of rolling stock and trains. We think of all this. However, a multitude of industries are involved. For example, ties for freight trains are made of wood. For the TGV, the ties are made of a cement that we don’t manufacture here and that has certain specific features. In addition, the production of this type of cement involves intellectual property and technological considerations. We can certainly produce it here, but this will require investment and expertise.
You’re right to ask the question. It’s a key issue for Alto and for the federal family. Conditions must be put in place to maximize the economic benefits in Canada and to create good jobs.
Senator Hébert: I think that, in addition to having good equipment, the cement must also withstand extreme cold. If it doesn’t, we’re in trouble. Like with the REM, we’ll end up with doors that don’t close properly because ice accumulates on them and because people failed to anticipate that snow would fall in winter. Those are some of the reported complaints made about the REM. I just wanted to draw your attention to this situation.
My second question relates to Senator Dalphond’s question. I would like to understand. If I’m a resident of Mirabel or another place, a 1-800 line will be available to provide information. Will it be 1-800-Alto, 1-800-TransportCanada or 1-800-Cadence?
In other words, will an organization be set up? We can think of the resident wondering who is responsible for what among all these organizations. We’re wondering this ourselves. Is anything planned for the residents affected by the project?
Mr. Robitaille: Alto, the Crown corporation created specifically for this purpose, will be the point of contact. It has a fairly comprehensive platform. I encourage you to visit the website and interactive map. I think that 20,000 people have already commented on the map. It’s one of the most comprehensive consultation systems.
I know that this may give rise to a certain amount of frustration at this stage. However, Alto’s approach doesn’t consist of saying that the train has come in and that nothing else will change. It’s about listening. They have brilliant people from all over the world, and they have Cadence to do the design.
However, there are things that we don’t know. Before drawing a line on the map, we want to hear from people. That’s the best approach, in our opinion. Yes, there’s uncertainty. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. At this stage, they don’t want to present people with a fait accompli. They want to listen to them first.
People see a long strip and wonder whether the track will go through their property or whether the place means something to them. That’s happening right now. We would like to tell the public that we know that this creates a great deal of uncertainty and that we need to give the process time to work properly. Alto must listen to what stakeholders have to say, and then make a better plan, to avoid repeating certain mistakes.
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me. Thank you. Time is running out.
Senator Galvez: Thank you. I have the same concerns as my colleagues about accountability. I think that I’ll ask you four questions that you can answer in writing. The first question is as follows.
[English]
How would Transport Canada ensure that costs do not overrun, that delays are not too extensive and about performance risk? How will Transport Canada take care of that? We don’t want to be in the case of Los Angeles, San Francisco and trains. We don’t want to be there.
The next question is, how will small- and medium-sized Canadian businesses be integrated in the procurement and supply chain?
With respect to the environment, because this interests me a lot, what type of energy will power the train? And because this is important, about the integration with the rest of the transport system, how will this train integrate with the existing urban public transit system? How will it integrate?
And then the financial structure. I have so many questions about the financial structure.
Governments change, and situations change. In the long-term, you’re talking about building this in 2029. My colleagues are very positive. We all think we’re going to use it, but I don’t think we will be there. Let’s touch wood and hope we will be there.
I think we need to know what is the durability and the timeline and the deliverability of the thing.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I invite you to send the answers to the clerk. I have four people for the second round, and we have a second witness panel. We are moving quickly into the second round, so please be succinct in your questions and answers.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I just want to make sure that I understand your testimony. You indicated that there’s an agreement between Alto and the consortium. Is that agreement publicly available? Just “yes” or “no”.
Mr. Robitaille: I don’t think it is available. It is like a commercial relationship between —
Senator Marshall: If it is, can you send it to us? I’ll accept the “not” unless you send us a copy of it.
Is the federal government financing it? The initial price tag is 60 to 90 billion. I understood from your testimony that the federal government is financing it, but they’re looking for investors?
Mr. Robitaille: It’s going to be financed both by the government and the private sector. Given the cost we expect that the majority of the cost will be paid by the public sector and the government, but there’s going to be significant investment by the private sector as well.
Senator Marshall: Have you identified private-sector investment? There is private sector investment already promised? Submitted?
Mr. Robitaille: Yes. The consortium called Cadence, includes Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which is a major pension fund, and they have committed to making a financial investment, along with Air Canada, which is the other equity investor.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: In terms of the jobs created through this program, it’s a lot of money. How many jobs — do you have a plan as to looking across the board and the different aspects of what is being built? How many jobs can we create in Canada? And how many of those will be jobs for young people, or youths? This is really a great opportunity that I wouldn’t want to lose.
Mr. Robitaille: Alto has done a study, and we anticipate more than 50,000 jobs will be created by the project during the construction.
I don’t think we have a breakdown between youth and age as part of the study. I’m not sure there is a reliable answer to your second question.
Senator Cardozo: I urge you to have that as part of your planning.
Are the trains to be built here, or will they be completely built abroad?
Mr. Robitaille: This will be a decision that will need to be made. At this point Alto is engaging to understand the capacity to build a train. What are the potential options? What could be built in Canada to maximize, again, the economic outcome?
We’re not ready yet to make the decision. It will be part of the full assessment, but if it can be done, this will be our preference.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Ross: I will quote the president of Alto who said:
Every year that goes by with no trains in service will add several billion dollars to the project’s cost. Every year represents an additional cost of $2 billion to $3 billion.
I would be interested in your comments, observations or reflections on that. If you could provide that in writing as to how that is going to work? And in relation to the timeline that you mentioned to my previous question.
My second comment would be, I am interested in the relationship between Alto, Cadence, the airlines — you’ve just mentioned Air Canada — and the airports. I’m wondering about the stations connecting with the airports or the downtowns. It’s a philosophical difference, and whether or not you want it to be downtown — Union Station or airports — and how that will impact.
Is it a more European style where it’s an airport? Or are we going to stick with Union station? I know you said those aren’t decided yet, but I think those are questions that a lot of Canadians are interested in knowing about.
Mr. Robitaille: The exact location of the stations will be determined through the work that is being done now.
Interconnectivity between other modes of transportation is key for the project. As much as possible, the government will favourably view connecting to airports and connecting to local transit, but we have to look at the overall tradeoff.
This project, as you correctly mentioned, is extremely costly. There are going to need to be difficult tradeoff decisions made in order to enable this project to be done and keep it affordable for Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: The answer will follow. There have been a lot of questions about the timeline. When is the purchase of the first steel rails expected to happen? When is a direct impact on our steel manufacturers expected?
Mr. Robitaille: When it comes to steel, it’s not the first thing we do; it’s the work. It is difficult to give a precise timeline because, if we are talking about creating industrial capacity, the modernization or improvement of plants must still be done upstream. That’s a long way off, but those considerations will have to be looked at soon to meet the project timelines.
Senator Dalphond: What is the timeline for the first purchase orders? You can let us know.
Mr. Robitaille: That will come, but the work has not yet reached the various supply chains. You can be sure that the teams at Alto are working on this, as these are essential elements for the project to be carried out.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’ve gone a little over our allotted time. Thank you very much for your participation. This is a project that is important to us and for which we have a great deal of interest; there is the whole matter of social acceptability, which is a major issue.
Honourable senators, for our second panel today, we are pleased to welcome, from the Competition Bureau Canada: Bradley Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch; Lawrence Zuker, Manager, Cartels and Deceptive Marketing Branch; and Matthew Chiasson, Senior Policy Advisor, Competition Promotion Branch.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today.
We will now hear opening remarks from Mr. Chiasson.
Matthew Chiasson, Senior Policy Advisor, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for having us here today.
My name is Matthew Chiasson. I am a Senior Policy Advisor at the Competition Bureau. I’m joined today by my colleagues: Brad Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch; and Lawrence Zuker, Manager, Cartels and Deceptive Marketing Branch.
As many of you know, the Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We administer and enforce Canada’s Competition Act, a law of general application that applies to all sectors of the economy.
We have a dual enforcement and advocacy role under our legislation. As an enforcer, we review mergers and investigate anti-competitive business practices such as abuse of dominance, price fixing and deceptive marketing.
As an advocate, we conduct market studies and provide advice to policy-makers on how to design competition-friendly rules and regulations.
In our view, competition is critical to building a stronger, more affordable economy.
[English]
As you know, the Canadian economy is rapidly evolving, and we are seeing shifts in trade, market dynamics and technology that are reshaping how business is done. As we navigate this landscape, our mission to protect and promote competition remains as vital as ever.
You have invited us to speak specifically about the greenwashing amendments contained in Division 43 of Part 5 of Bill C-15. We discussed this division with the Senate Banking Committee on December 4, and I will repeat some of the testimony that we provided there. And I do recognize some faces from that appearance.
Division 43 contains two amendments to specific anti-greenwashing provisions that were added to the Competition Act in 2024. We understand that these proposed amendments are intended to provide more certainty to the marketplace while maintaining protections against certain false or misleading environmental claims.
The first change removes the requirement on businesses to substantiate environmental claims in accordance with an “internationally recognized methodology.” To be clear, the bureau does not see this as an obstacle to effective enforcement of the amended greenwashing provision. Businesses will still have to demonstrate that their substantiation is adequate and proper for the particular claim being made.
The second change removes the ability of third parties to bring greenwashing complaints directly to the Competition Tribunal under this amended greenwashing provision. However, they can still bring such claims under other provisions of the Competition Act that prohibit misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices.
If these changes come into effect, the bureau will align its guidelines accordingly.
Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the bureau to conduct its investigations in private and to keep confidential the information we have. So this obligation may prevent us from discussing certain facets of our investigations or even the existence of certain investigations.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for your opening remarks. We will now move on to questions and answers.
[English]
Senator Marshall: You mentioned the Banking Committee, but can you go back a bit further in time, because I can remember when the amendment was made to include internationally recognized methodology. So I feel like we’re going back in time now and changing something that we had a big problem with. The senators had a big problem with that terminology, I think maybe a year ago. Can you talk about the history and why we’re changing it?
Mr. Chiasson: So these amendments were initially introduced in Bill C-59, which was studied by this committee. The government had proposed a limited type of amendment dealing only with environmental claims respecting products. But the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance decided to expand it to also include environmental claims with respect to businesses and business activities, but they reformulated the test somewhat to require substantiation to be based on adequate and proper testing in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology, which was a somewhat novel type of language. It did attract some criticism from stakeholders for not being particularly clear.
This committee did observe that there were potentially some issues with respect to complying with that, and you urged us to put out some guidance, which we did do after these amendments were passed, which we hope did clarify at least the bureau’s approach to enforcing them. But these guidelines are not binding on third-party litigants. The government has decided, for this particular issue, that they could clean it up through amendments here. That’s what is being done.
Senator Marshall: Just to clarify, for my recollection, are there internationally recognized methodologies? Because it is my recollection that there are not.
Mr. Chiasson: A wide variety of environmental claims can be made. Some are about the composition of products; some are about production processes; some are about disposal. For some of these claims, there are internationally recognized methodologies, but there is still some debate about when something would qualify as an internationally recognized methodology. We issued some guidance; we thought that if it were recognized in at least two countries as being valid, that it would be an internationally recognized methodology. But this is something that likely would have been contentious in cases if they were ever brought to the courts.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
Senator Ross: I would like to thank the government for making this change because I tried to make this amendment in this committee a year and a half ago. This amendment was defeated 3 to 8 by this committee. So I’m very happy to see that what had been heard from businesses, from coast to coast to coast, has been listened to, that this was going to be a very difficult standard to understand and to even understand those guidelines.
I’m interested to know what the feedback has been on this new one from the business sector. What are you hearing?
Mr. Chiasson: I will start, and it may be relevant to some other questions. The Competition Bureau’s role is really to enforce the Competition Act. Developing amendments are led by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The questions around what stakeholders were saying and what changes were considered and how to formulate them would really be for their officials to answer. Of course, many businesses weren’t shy about conveying the concerns they had, so we are aware of them through our own consultations.
With respect to these changes, if I am being candid, I would say we haven’t seen a whole lot of reaction. The reaction we have seen from the business community has generally been pretty supportive. The reaction from the environmental community has been somewhat muted. Maybe they’ve taken a greater interest in some of the other environmental-related changes in this particular bill; perhaps they see these changes as modest, but that would be for them to answer.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I would like you to answer this — because, you are right, you will have the task of enforcing this. You need a point of reference and comparison to assess what is “adequate and proper substantiation.”
To me, when you say “standards,” it rings very solidly. When you say, “adequate and proper substantiation,” it is really very vague. The issues of consistency and objectivity are very important here. What evidentiary standard will the bureau apply to determine whether any environmental claim meets this “adequate and proper substantiation”?
You are saying that, with the initial change to “internationally recognized methodology,” the industry complained, but NGOs were saying it was not good enough. There was no case in court to say whether it was right or wrong. Now, you are putting, in my eyes, a greyer term, “adequate and proper substantiation,” and you are not comparing it with anything. When it goes to court, actually, we will be here again because it is not clear.
I’ve been here now for 10 years, and I have seen it many times. We were not clear, and so the courts come back and say to us, “You are not doing your job. You are leaving things unclear. Please do your job and clarify it so we can render a verdict or a sentence.”
Mr. Chiasson: It’s a great question. One thing I would point out is that, in the original formulation, you have to substantiate based on adequate and proper substantiation and in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. Both concepts were already in. The change is getting rid of the six words, “in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.”
My second point is that “adequate and proper” probably does sound vague, but those concepts have been in the Competition Act for the better part of 100 years or so. We’ve had provisions dealing with performance claims, so the meaning of those words has been clarified through case law and applied in different factual circumstances. We do have guidance. I think the business community and their counsel have gotten comfortable advising businesses on what is sufficient to meet that standard.
To give you a sense, it depends on the nature of the claim being made. It doesn’t require absolute certainty but should establish that the results are not a mere chance or a one-time effect. It should be done under controlled circumstances and conducted before the claim is made.
Some synonymous terms that have been found to be similar to “adequate and proper” are terms like fit, apt, suitable, as required by the circumstances, sufficient and appropriate.
We are reverting, if you like, to a tested formulation for substantiation that has evolved. While it probably sounds indeterminate, it is actually clearer than the status quo.
Senator Galvez: I have two questions: How many cases of greenwashing are in court? How does this wording compare with other jurisdictions trying to solve the same problem?
Mr. Chiasson: [Technical difficulties] — but I can tell you that there are no active cases right now brought either by the bureau or by private parties under these greenwashing provisions. There have been cases in the past. Some cases involved Keurig for how it was marketing the recyclability of its K-Cups. Cases were brought against Volkswagen, Porsche and Audi for the emissions scandal known as Dieselgate. Those were taken under the previous provisions, so it is just to make the point that we have been pursuing greenwashing for a long time under existing provisions. These ones are a little bit more tailored but still relatively new. These cases do take time to develop, so hopefully we will see more in the coming months and years.
Lawrence Zuker, Manager, Cartels and Deceptive Marketing Branch: Yes, when it comes to other jurisdictions, they have used some slightly different wording in the United States, like “be supported by a reasonable basis” and, in the United Kingdom, “tested against scientific or other evidence.”
What happened in this case is that, if you look at the way the provisions were drafted, as my colleague mentioned, we see the general performance claim provision, which has been in the act for a long time. Then we have one of the two new greenwashing provisions that has, again, “adequate and proper testing,” which is the exact same wording. The concern was that “adequate and proper testing” didn’t fit when it comes to many businesses and business activity representations, so they took the very similar wording of “adequate and proper substantiation.”
The language of “adequate and proper” has been interpreted by the courts. “Substantiation” is the one word that is slightly different, but we think it is still enforceable in that sense. We think that removing “internationally recognized methodology” provides a little bit more flexibility to businesses to figure out how to support their claims best.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you for being here. What is the bureau’s view on using the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards as a recognized standard, instead of the language around “adequate and proper substantiation”? Based on testimony to this committee, I understood that the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards are aligned with international sustainability standards. Is that not a recognized international methodology?
Mr. Chiasson: What we’ve said in our guidelines is that we were prepared to assume that guidance provided by a federal‑provincial organization was consistent with an internationally recognized methodology, so if these amendments don’t pass, then that would be something we could consider. If these amendments do pass, the question is a bit moot because it need not be an internationally recognized method to constitute adequate and proper substantiation.
Senator MacAdam: I am thinking, based on the testimony, that we do have an internationally recognized methodology in those Canadian standards. During a previous study, we heard from witnesses who emphasized the importance of those standards to the Canadian economy, notably having a consistent, reliable, understandable and comparable baseline globally to which investors can compare and understand what they are looking at and where the benefits are in order to invest. In order to attract global investment to this country, these Canadian standards, we heard in testimony, are very important for Canada. I’m just a little bit confused as to why that doesn’t qualify. If we leave the legislation the way it is, why wouldn’t we use those standards?
Mr. Chiasson: Just to clarify, in our guidelines, we were prepared to make that assumption. Private litigants are not bound by our guidelines, and they could advance an interpretation of recognized methodology that would not count in what we just discussed. They could insist that the methodology be recognized by two or more other countries or some international standards body. The bureau’s guidance went as far as we could to clarify our approach, but in terms of ending the debate, there is only so far it could go, if that makes sense.
Senator MacAdam: But do you consider the Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards adequate as an internationally recognized standard?
Bradley Callaghan, Associate Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada: Maybe I can add a piece of context, and we can take a step back. The Competition Act works as general legislation. It is for general application. While, of course, we do try to put in the guidelines that my colleagues have been discussing our own interpretation of how the bureau should enforce that, it tends not to be prescriptive about one particular standard which would meet it. The idea is essentially to give companies the kinds of flexibility that my colleague has mentioned in terms of adhering to the law and being in compliance with it but not necessarily prescribing one methodology.
My colleague can correct me, but I don’t know that it is something that the bureau has studied for the purpose of qualifying that particular standard, per se. The approach with the legislation is more for general purposes to ensure compliance but also to provide some flexibility as to how companies are going to meet it.
Senator MacAdam: Going back to my colleague’s comment about the wording “adequate and proper substantiation,” as you acknowledged, those are vague comments. Does that create some uncertainty for businesses in terms of having to do all this work to substantiate, and then it not being clear, because there’s so much flexibility if it’s going to be good enough to meet that threshold of compliance, so to speak? That’s the other side to this. It is nice to be flexible, but there is some uncertainty with businesses in terms of how much work they have to do. If they do a whole lot of work and then it ends up not being good enough, it is too bad. If we had known, we could have done other things and not be in this situation. I am just trying to understand.
Mr. Callaghan: It is a good question. It goes back to what I said before that the concepts of “adequate” and “proper” have been around in the act for a while, and businesses are generally comfortable with what they mean. There is a twist with the fact that it’s substantiation and not testing, but we provided some guidance on that.
There has not been a big outcry from the business community about these particular changes. What we have seen, at least for this committee, is that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, when they appeared on December 9, said they supported them. The Quebec Business Council on the Environment, in their written brief, said they support them. I don’t think we’ve seen any businesses or organizations filing briefs with this committee saying they don’t go far enough in terms of providing certainty. Those are markers for us that provide some comfort.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: It’s not really a question, but I wanted to mention to Senator Ross that her amendment made a lot of sense. Even though we voted eight to two against the amendment, we had asked . . . In the report, we made comments to tell the Competition Bureau that it had one year to put in place the regulations to study this issue seriously and that it had to get back to us on that. Your efforts were not in vain, on the contrary; that’s what the bureau did, and they came back with proposals.
[English]
We’re just following the long track instead of the fast track.
[Translation]
That’s because of you.
[English]
That’s all I wanted to say on this issue. Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Can you answer these four questions with respect to the new language used? Sorry, it’s not new. You said it was there already: “adequate and proper substantiation.”
Can you tell me what level of scientific rigour is required? Whether independent or peer-review evidence is necessary? Which methodologies are acceptable? Whether industry-developed standards are sufficient? If they have developed their own standards, can they claim, “Well, I did my thing, and it is enough?”
I think that vagueness increases litigation risks. I am convinced of that, and it is just a matter of time. Will your change make the oil companies and the banks put their net-zero plans back on their websites? Because that’s what triggered everything. They took them off. They said, “Oh, we’re scared of the new wording.” Now that we are erasing “international standards,” will they put back all their pretend pledges that don’t have any scientific backup? Can you answer in written form to the clerk, please?
Mr. Chiasson: Yes.
Mr. Callaghan: One thing I can say from a conceptual perspective about the approach to these provisions is that advertising is part of the competitive process. The idea is to allow businesses the opportunity to do that. They just have to back it up with the evidence that’s required.
That’s the purpose of these kinds of provisions. The idea is to have enough certainty about how they are applied. The bureau’s role in that is to try to give the best guidance as possible on the way that the law is written, but we want the competitive process to play out. If there is a company that has a superior product or, in the case of environmental claims, that they can make something that is substantiated, they can go ahead and make that part of their offer so that consumers can make that choice if that is what is most important to them.
That’s the basis of this, but we apply the law. They are good questions on the technical aspects about what may be required, so we can try to follow up on those.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before we adjourn, I would like to congratulate Senator Ross on her positive influence on the Competition Bureau and sincerely thank the witnesses who answered our questions with such clarity and conciseness.
(The committee adjourned.)